Do you use an aiming system or go by feel?
- Thread starter SamLambert
- Start date
All the proof and explanations are all over this forum, many times, in many places, which I know you have read before, more than once, because you were involved in some of the threads. There is no point in my repeating them again because you have already shown you simply lack the capacity (for whatever reason, and there could be many including intelligence, bias, closed mindedness, laziness, etc) to understand them. You cannot ever prove something to someone who simply lacks the capacity to understand the proof. It is an unfortunate catch 22.
Not to mention that CTE debate or teaching belongs in its "special" place, over in the aiming forum and I don't want to be baited into having that debate here, where it doesn't belong.
Everyone teaching CTE without exception is misleading people, and very seriously misleading them at that. I don't think it is intentional though. I think their and your intent is mostly sincere and your false beliefs are simply due to your lack of capacity to understand the topic for whatever the reason.
Want to further debate CTE? Start a thread in the aiming forum where it would belong, not here. You are going to get yourself banned again on your first day back doing what you know you are not supposed to be doing. Take it to the aiming forum.
Both are needed for sure...........
No matter what you do you need to have your brain put on the final touch.
Any good aiming system will get you close to this position so there is less for the brain to figure it out.
Kind of like the low deflection shafts. Some swear at them and others swear by them.
The ones that swear at them don't know the difference and how to adjust to the different deflection.
What I teach with the aiming is probably not an aiming system but getting the dominant eye in the correct position and in turn the body and stroke will fall into place almost naturally with a few minor adjustments needed.
Like with a gun.
You have used the open sights for years. swear you would never use one of those stupid scopes.
Your buddy has one of those stupid scopes and shoots all the deer that I don't even try to aim at with the open sights.
You both use a system. It's just that your buddy that has the scope is much more successful. But until you could tell the difference first hand it was hard to imagine the difference.
This is kind of a cut and dried example.
There are many different aiming systems but only a couple that work at getting the eyes in the most dominant position.
If the dominant eye is not in the most, and I mean the most dominant position, the scope is out of line to begin with.
Perfect Aim is about showing a player where this most correct dominant position is so the brain is getting the most correct picture.
Think about it?
We all know when we get down and the shot doesn't look right that we will probably miss.
The key is LOOK RIGHT.....................
If it doesn't look right it's because the eyes are not positioned correctly.
This can be done manually very successfully.
The answer is both. But.....you can do so much to get close manually but it really needs to be learned.
Doing more manually, knowing how, is so huge.
The brain has too many things to do naturally.
If you know how to use a scope you can hit the target until your 150 years old.
Same with a pool shot. Just need to learn where that natural scope is.....
No matter what you do you need to have your brain put on the final touch.
Any good aiming system will get you close to this position so there is less for the brain to figure it out.
Kind of like the low deflection shafts. Some swear at them and others swear by them.
The ones that swear at them don't know the difference and how to adjust to the different deflection.
What I teach with the aiming is probably not an aiming system but getting the dominant eye in the correct position and in turn the body and stroke will fall into place almost naturally with a few minor adjustments needed.
Like with a gun.
You have used the open sights for years. swear you would never use one of those stupid scopes.
Your buddy has one of those stupid scopes and shoots all the deer that I don't even try to aim at with the open sights.
You both use a system. It's just that your buddy that has the scope is much more successful. But until you could tell the difference first hand it was hard to imagine the difference.
This is kind of a cut and dried example.
There are many different aiming systems but only a couple that work at getting the eyes in the most dominant position.
If the dominant eye is not in the most, and I mean the most dominant position, the scope is out of line to begin with.
Perfect Aim is about showing a player where this most correct dominant position is so the brain is getting the most correct picture.
Think about it?
We all know when we get down and the shot doesn't look right that we will probably miss.
The key is LOOK RIGHT.....................
If it doesn't look right it's because the eyes are not positioned correctly.
This can be done manually very successfully.
The answer is both. But.....you can do so much to get close manually but it really needs to be learned.
Doing more manually, knowing how, is so huge.
The brain has too many things to do naturally.
If you know how to use a scope you can hit the target until your 150 years old.
Same with a pool shot. Just need to learn where that natural scope is.....
John,
Do you think you using the Landon vs Earl match to suggest that CTE is better than whatever Earl does was a logical thing to do & is founded.
Didn't Lou rather decisively win the match against you.
As I said before that kind of stuff is no proof of anything.
I disagree with you about what you said to Poolplaya as I feel that I was very misled by the assertions that CTE is a totally objective system.
As I have said before that is my only real issue as it also seems to be for some others.
If it were to be said by the proper individual that CTE does require subjectivity to arrive at the fine tuned line for the shot, I think all of the hub bub would go away.
Best Wishes.
PS Perception is Subjective.
Do you think you using the Landon vs Earl match to suggest that CTE is better than whatever Earl does was a logical thing to do & is founded.
Didn't Lou rather decisively win the match against you.
As I said before that kind of stuff is no proof of anything.
I disagree with you about what you said to Poolplaya as I feel that I was very misled by the assertions that CTE is a totally objective system.
As I have said before that is my only real issue as it also seems to be for some others.
If it were to be said by the proper individual that CTE does require subjectivity to arrive at the fine tuned line for the shot, I think all of the hub bub would go away.
Best Wishes.
PS Perception is Subjective.
I would recommend Gene's Perfect Aim to everyone if only to confirm that you are seeing a straight line as straight & not a crooked line as straight.
How have you been Gene? I hope well.
You have been on a roll lately with great posts, but you are out in left field on CTE. In fact, your statement about misleading people is way out of line. You talk about intelligence or lack thereof, yours about CTE is not sufficient to be talking about it. Frankly, you don't know what you don't know.
I am very familiar with backhand english. I was one of the first ones to make others aware of the technique in the late 70's... In the Chicagoland area at least... I hadn't been shown the technique but figured it out for myself by let's just say a higher power..lol :smile:.. I had shown the technique to many who later coined the term "the Lilek method" . To this day I'm not sure if this technique was used or talked about before I discovered it. I have not heard that it had been yet... I'm sure I will now though..haha :wink:
It does work in moderation...
Did I say that? No I didn't nor did I suggest it. I said that if Sam gets to either of their levels then he will be ready for the pros. That match merely happens to showcase a player who uses ProOne deliberately at the pro level.
No he did not. He won 9-6 and at the end of nine hours of play, much of which was agreeably horrible on my part, we were 3 games of one pocket apart. This is not decisive by any measure.
Ok. You're right, no individual match result is "proof" of anything other than one player won and the other one lost. The reasons why are generally complex and not attributable to any one aspect of method or attitude.
Ok. Please find where you felt misled by any statement I made and I will be happy to look at it and apologize to you personally if needed. I can't be responsible for your feelings and experience however. If it makes you feel better think of CTE as something like 99% objective and 1% subjective. I can live with that. ;-) I don't think it matters though. Whether it is totally objective or not doesn't diminish the benefit that can be derived from the use of of CTE in particular and in general any similarly "more" objective method of aiming in my opinion. I do sincerely apologize if anything I said in my videos caused you any personal anguish as that was not my intent.
Ok.
Well, all you or anyone has to do is make your own videos and show the subjectivity if you can. You don't need to wait for someone to admit something that they probably don't believe. Nothing prevents anyone from making a video critique and clearly defining whatever aspects they think proves their point. This is how it's done for 1000s of products and methods using YouTube and other outlets by people every day.
Of course perception is subjective to a degree. But when you train yourself to perceive certain characteristics of an object then your perception of those characteristics becomes that much sharper. Famously Sherlock Holmes trained himself to quickly ascertain the characteristics of a subject and thus seemed to "magically" be able to describe accurate details about a person whom he had just met for the first time. We know however that he studied the science of forensics to a high degree so that his perception was fueled by knowledge and experience.
That is in the end the difference between the expert and the novice. A novice is marked by what he does not know and cannot yet do or see. An expert in contrast makes decisions in seconds that are both accurate and productive. So for CTE the more practice a person has, deliberate and knowledgeable, the more objective the perception is in my opinion.
I don't get all hung up on the words. I look at the steps and follow the directions and if it works for me to help me become a better player I don't need to know why it works. Although I have searched for why it is ONLY because I am curious how things work not because I need to know in order to reap the benefits. I pocket better, I bank better and as an added bonus I play position better. That's the bottom line.
Hal Houle introduced it to me. Since then I have met many players, some older, who say that they learned it in the 60's/70s and use it. I never thought about asking people how they apply spin until Hal showed me a way that was different than what was presented in Byrne's books.
I don't know what you mean by moderation. I get pretty sporty spin using it. Sometimes with extreme spin though I will have to make an additional conscious adjustment to account for the deflection.
No matter what you do you need to have your brain put on the final touch.
Any good aiming system will get you close to this position so there is less for the brain to figure it out.
Kind of like the low deflection shafts. Some swear at them and others swear by them.
The ones that swear at them don't know the difference and how to adjust to the different deflection.
What I teach with the aiming is probably not an aiming system but getting the dominant eye in the correct position and in turn the body and stroke will fall into place almost naturally with a few minor adjustments needed.
Like with a gun.
You have used the open sights for years. swear you would never use one of those stupid scopes.
Your buddy has one of those stupid scopes and shoots all the deer that I don't even try to aim at with the open sights.
You both use a system. It's just that your buddy that has the scope is much more successful. But until you could tell the difference first hand it was hard to imagine the difference.
This is kind of a cut and dried example.
There are many different aiming systems but only a couple that work at getting the eyes in the most dominant position.
If the dominant eye is not in the most, and I mean the most dominant position, the scope is out of line to begin with.
Perfect Aim is about showing a player where this most correct dominant position is so the brain is getting the most correct picture.
Think about it?
We all know when we get down and the shot doesn't look right that we will probably miss.
The key is LOOK RIGHT.....................
If it doesn't look right it's because the eyes are not positioned correctly.
This can be done manually very successfully.
The answer is both. But.....you can do so much to get close manually but it really needs to be learned.
Doing more manually, knowing how, is so huge.
The brain has too many things to do naturally.
If you know how to use a scope you can hit the target until your 150 years old.
Same with a pool shot. Just need to learn where that natural scope is.....
JoeyA whom I respect tremendously as a player and a person speaks highly of your Perfect Aiming concept. When playing against him and being the victim of his accuracy there is no doubt that his use of your methods and the aiming methods he has learned is a powerful combination.
By moderation I mean it all depends on how hard your stroke has to be to get position in relation to how far the object ball is from the cue ball. It many circumstances, using it is a crap shoot.... Using outside BHE affects this even more for some reason...
No one forced you to discuss this or any other aiming method. You could be courteous and simply link to whatever you assert though. I do the same for you and everyone else I have a discussion with. That is part of using the internet in my opinion, to quickly cite your sources and examples in order to further the discussion instead of telling someone to "go look it up".
Sorry you are 100% wrong. No one is misleading anyone and certainly not intentionally or seriously. My statements are based on results on the table and nothing else.
Every time I have been asked about CTE or even challenged about it ON THE TABLE, I have been able to satisfactorily demonstrate it. After I had mastered it to a sufficient degree that is. I do this at least once a week when asked.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't banned. I left. Don't presume to tell me what to do. My responses were on topic addressing comments made in the thread. If you want to have the thread moved it is certainly your right to complain to whomever you like that can move it.
I have made mention MANY times in this thread that CTE is not the only accurate method. The topic is a poll as to whether we use aiming systems and to what degree and I related my personal experience as pertains to the questions asked. If that bothers you then you are free to not open the thread and can abstain from further discussion voluntarily. But frequency of response in a discussion is not against the rules and I hope you don't think it should be.
I was reading today about the Scientific Method on wiki, and brushing up on it. It got me to thinking that after 20 years of debating CTE, why have none of you CTE guys set up an actual scientific experiment. Instead, its the same old same old.
Anti-CTE: "The system does not make any logical sense, it doesn't work"
Pro-CTE: "The system works perfectly, you just don't understand it"
Go read up on the Scientific Method, and then do some science to test the ideas of CTE. Spend your time doing something that might produce something tangible, not just this same old 20 year argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Anti-CTE: "The system does not make any logical sense, it doesn't work"
Pro-CTE: "The system works perfectly, you just don't understand it"
Go read up on the Scientific Method, and then do some science to test the ideas of CTE. Spend your time doing something that might produce something tangible, not just this same old 20 year argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I agree, some of us just have it backwards on who doesn't know what they don't know.
But for those that are new to the debates and just don't know which side is likely right or has more credibility to believe in, on one side you have all the people with the genius or super exceptional IQ's, and all the scientists with PhD's in some of the most complicated fields on earth (some of whom are pool instructors) and they all without exception are on the same side and unanimously to a person agree that CTE does not and cannot find the exact aim line although it can provide some help to some people for other reasons, and on the other side you have random pool players (some of whom are also pool instructors) who have no exceptional scientific credentials or IQ's and who say "well geez, but it must be finding the right aim line because I can make balls with it". I will leave it to everyone to make their own decision on who is likely actually right based on those facts even if they don't understand all the science behind CTE themselves. I sure know where my money would be if I didn't fully understand it and how it all worked and all the science behind it.
But again, let everyone who wants to debate CTE feel free to do so to their hearts content, in the aiming forum where it belongs and not in the main forum where we are not supposed to be debating it. Start a thread over there for all the people who are interested in continuing to debate it or read more about it.
You don't need a test - the idea that any system simple enough to use could produce more than a fraction of all the cut angles needed to play pool is absurd on its face. And if you don't think CTE's explanations for that ("rotating edges", "3D perceptions", etc.) are ridiculous on their face, then you're most likely immune to science anyway.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Why? Do you think that somehow this is important? I mean you are not the target audience. The target audience for any aiming method, or any technique in pool, is people willing to put in the work on the table.
Just as famously someone posted the "math" behind GhostBall while cool to see a drawing and some equations it wouldn't help a single person learn to use the ghost ball method to see or even understand the math behind it. The proof of a good aiming method is the results that a player gets out of it. Learn, practice, play better. If that's the result then it's a good method. If not then drop it and move to something else.
Why don't you use the scientific method to disprove it if your assertion is that it doesn't work? I know you have a table and a video camera.
Here's Dr. Dave's video explaining the 45 degrees through center of the table method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OD5TsWrByI
Not exactly. You would need to see it from the back of the cueball to understand the perception I am speaking of.
It's not 30 degrees at the object ball.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETWcUmJsgs
No thanks. The burden of proof is on you. My point is instead of spending 20 years arguing, you could have done some sort of experiment in a couple of months, and have gotten much further. As it is now, there is nothing today that shows CTE works. Its just he said she said. Thats it. It makes no difference if the person saying it works is the best player in the world, or a banger. You don't have anything more than you did 20 years ago.
What you are actually saying is: Who do we listen to? Those that know the system very well, or those that have only scanned the material and haven't spent enough time with it to actually learn it? You also omit the fact that some of us that do use also have spent considerable time testing it in many facets to verify what we say about it. Something no one on the other side has done.
And, by that, I mean learning the system well enough to be confident in it, and then doing certain tests to rule out adjusting, ect.